High school outcomes for students in a public montessori program

Journal of Research in Childhood Education

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 205-217

  Dohrmann, Kathryn Rindskopf ^a   Nishida, Tracy K ^b   Gartner, Alan ^c   Lipsky, Dorothy Kerzner ^c   Grimm, Kevin J ^d  

^a LAKE FOREST COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38149037243     PISSN: 02568543     EISSN: 21502641     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02568540709594622     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Butz, M., & Miller, J. (1988, April). A history of Montessori in the Milwaukee Public Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association Montessori Internationale, Amsterdam.
2. Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., & Gorney, D. (1992). Family factors and student achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 178-206.
3. Cox, M. V., & Rowlands, A. (2000). The effect of three different educational approaches on children’s drawing ability: Steiner, Montes-sori and traditional. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 485-503.
4. Duax, T. (1989). Preliminary report on the educational effectiveness of a Montessori school in the public sector. NAMTA Journal, 14, 56-62.
5. Glenn, C. M. (1993). Market research at a Mon-tessori school. Reasons for choosing, leaving and staying. Montessori Life, 5, 13-14.
6. Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance: Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African-American and Euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 74-83.
7. Karnes, M., Schwedel, A., & Williams, B. (1983). A comparison of five approaches for educating young children from low-income homes. In The Consortium for Longitudinal Studies (Eds.), As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool (pp. 133-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Karnes, M., Teska, J., & Hodgins, A. S. (1970). The effects of four programs of classroom intervention on the intellectual and language development of 4-year-old disadvantaged children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 40, 58-76.
9. Krafft, K. C., & Berk, L. (1998). Private speech in two preschools: Significance of open-ended activities and make-believe play for verbal self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 637-658.
10. Lee, V. E., Brooks-Gunn, J., Schnur, E., & Liaw, F. (1990). Are Head Start effects sustained? A longitudinal follow-up comparison of disadvantaged children attending Head Start, no preschool, and other preschool programs. Child Development, 61, 495-507.
11. Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893-1894.
12. Lopata, C., Wallace, N., & Finn, K. (2005). Comparison of academic achievement between Montessori and traditional education programs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 5-13.
13. Messick, S. (1979). Potential uses of noncognitive measures in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 281-292.
14. Miller, L., & Bizzell, R. (1983). Long term effects of four preschool programs: Sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. Child Development, 54, 727-741.
15. Miller, L., & Bizzell, R. (1984). Long-term effects of four pre-school programs: Ninth- and tenth-grade results. Child Development, 55, 1570-1587.
16. Miller, L., & Dyer, J. (1975). Four preschool programs: Their dimensions and effects. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40, 1-170.
17. Milwaukee Public Schools. (2000). 1999-2000 accountability report. Milwaukee, WI: MPS Office of Research and Assessment.
18. Montessori, M. (1988). The discovery of the child: Vol. 2. The Clio Montessori Series. Oxford, England: Clio Press. (Reprinted from The Montessori method, 1912)
19. Noble, J., Davenport, M., Schiel, J., & Pom-merick, M. (1999a). High school academic and noncognitive variables related to the ACT scores of racial/ethnic and gender groups. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. (ACT Research Report No. 99-6).
20. Noble, J., Davenport, M., Schiel, J., & Pom-merick, M. (1999b). Relationships between the noncognitive characteristics, high school course work and grades, and test scores for ACT-Tested students. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. (ACT Research Report No. 99-4).
21. Noble, J., & McNabb, T. (1989). Differential course work and grades in high school: Implications for performance on the ACT Assessment. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. (ACT Research Report No. 89-5).
22. Pezdek, K., Berry, T., & Renno, P. (2002). Children’s mathematics achievement: The role of parents’ perceptions and their involvement in homework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 771-777.
23. Pianta, R., Belsky, J., Houts, R., Morrison, F., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 17951796.
24. Rathunde, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Middle school students’ motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American Journal of Education, 111, 341-371.
25. Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Kang, K. (1996). School choice, family characteristics, and home-school relations: Contributors to school achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 451-460.